Lexical-constructional integration in non-prototypical English middles: the role of high-level metonymy as a motivating factor
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18172/jes.2621Keywords:
Non-prototypical middle construction, lexical-constructional integration, high-level metonymyAbstract
The main aim of this paper is to consider the issue of lexicalconstructional integration in circumstantial English middles with instrumental and locative subjects, exemplified respectively by Narrow tyres manoeuvre more easily and The tennis court plays a bit slower (cf. Davidse and Heyvaert 2003, 2007). I will first explore the lexico-semantic mechanisms that may sanction the ascription of a verbal predicate to these extended uses of the middle construction where there is no causative element and the “affectedness” constraint needs to be ruled out. Drawing upon Ruiz de Mendoza and Mairal Usón (2007, 2011), I will also try to determine to what extent high-level metonymy may actually apply as an external motivating factor in the explanation of these non-prototypical uses of the middle, also showing how contextual and discourse-pragmatic factors cooperate with each other to enhance the metonymic interpretation of the “circumstantial” middle type.Downloads
References
Cortés Rodríguez, F. 2009. “The inchoative construction: Semantic representation and unification constraints”. Deconstructing Constructions. Eds. C. S. Butler and J. Martín Arista. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 247-270.
Davidse, K. and L. Heyvaert. 2003. “On the middle construction in English and Dutch”. Corpus-based Approaches to Contrastive Linguistics and Translation Studies. Eds. S. Granger, J. Lerot and S. Petch-Tyson. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 57-73
Davidse, K. and L. Heyvaert. 2007. “On the middle voice: an interpersonal analysis of the English middle”. Linguistics 45 (1): 37-83.
Davies, M. 2008. The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 425 million words, 1990-present. <http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/>
Dik, S. C. 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar 2: Complex Constructions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dixon, R. M. W. 2005 (1991). A Semantic Approach to English Grammar. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Fagan, S. M. B. 1992. The Syntax and Semantics of Middle Constructions. Cambridge: CUP.
Fellbaum, C. and A. Zribi-Hertz. 1989. The Middle Construction in French and English: A Comparative Study of its Syntax and Semantics. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club Publications.
Goldberg, A. 1995. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Heyvaert, L. 2003. A Cognitive-Functional Approach to Nominalization in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hendrikse, A. P. 1989. “Syntactic structures as pragmatic options.” Studies in Language 13 (2): 333-379.
Iwata, S. 1999. “On the status of an implicit argument in middles”. Journal of Linguistics 35: 527-553.
Kemmer, S. 1993. The Middle Voice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Keyser, S. J. and T. Roeper 1984. “On the middle and ergative constructions in English”. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 381-416.
Kövecses, Z. and G. Radden 1998. “Metonymy: developing a cognitive linguistic view”. Cognitive Linguistics 9: 37-77.
Langacker, R. W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar 2: Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lemmens, M 1998. Lexical Perspectives on Transitivity and Ergativity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Levin, B. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations. A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Pustejovsky, J. 1991. “The generative lexicon”. Computational Linguistics 17: 409-441.
Radden, G. and R. Dirven. 2007. Cognitive English Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. 2007. “High-level cognitive models: in search of a unified framework for inferential and grammatical behaviour”. Perspectives on Metonymy. Proceedings of the International Conference “Perspectives on Metonymy”, held in Łódź, Poland, May 6-7, 2005. Ed. K. Kosecki. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 11-30.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. and R. Mairal Usón. 2007. “High-level metaphor and metonymy in meaning construction”. Aspects of Meaning Construction. Eds. G. Radden, K.-M. Köpcke, T. Berg and P. Siemund. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 33-51.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. and R. Mairal Usón. 2011. “Constraints on syntactic alternation: Lexical-constructional subsumption in the Lexical-Constructional Model”. Morphosyntactic Alternations in English. Functional and Cognitive Perspectives. Ed. P. Guerrero Medina. Sheffield: Equinox Publishing. 62-82.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. and S. Peña Cervel. 2008. “Grammatical metonymy within the ‘action’ frame in English and Spanish”. Current Trends in Contrastive Linguistics. Functional and Cognitive Perspectives. Eds. M. A. Gómez-González, J. L. Mackenzie and E. González Álvarez. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 251-280.
Talmy, L. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics 1: Concept Structuring Systems. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Van Oosten, J. 1986. The Nature of Subjects, Topics and Agents: A Cognitive Explanation. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Yoshimura, K. and J. R. Taylor. 2004. “What makes a good middle? The role of qualia in the interpretation and acceptability of middle expressions in English”. English Language and Linguistics 8 (2): 293-321.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
The authors retain copyright of articles and authorize Journal of English Studies the first publication. They are free to share, redistribute, and/or reprint the article without obtaining permission from the publisher as long as they give appropriate credit to the editor and the journal.
Self-archiving is allowed too. In fact, it is recommendable to deposit a PDF version of the paper in academic and/or institutional repositories.
It is recommended to include the DOI number.
This journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
